Will Warner support Blu-ray part 2 ?

Why didn't you use the QUOTE functionality of the forum like you usually do? You had no problem documenting the source of your quotes and their links in the past.

The fact is, you lied. You tried to pass off knowledge as your own. You've been busted. You are utterly incapable of arguing on your own. You are nothing more than a search engine quotation machine, who understands compression about as much a a worker in Searle's Chinese Room understands chinese.

Ignore on.

 

Thanks, because you have not proven shit.

If would be nice if you would actually dare to link to the thread on the AVS forum where you asked the question.

Instead thanks to Democoder and other good people on this board you have made them produce examples and evidence on how much MPEG2 sucks compared to h.264.

You still haven't answered my simple question, how do you expect h.264 to look worse than MPEG2 @ 35mbit which is the theoretical bitrate required for 1080p if we want to keep the same "pixel quality" as we have on DVD's know.. which is NOT TRANSPARENT ANYWAY and could really use IMPROVEMENT!

 

It's actually quite easy to test, take some uncompresse SD footage, make a 7mbit MPEG2 stream and compare it with a 7mbit VC-1 h.264 stream...

I think you will be surprised...

 

Since h.264 has the same visual fidelity at less than half the bitrate compared to Mpeg-2 , h.264 could encode more than twice as many pixels per second for any given bitrate.

You could use this to either double up the pixels in the spatial domain (1280x720p -> 1920x1080p) or double up on refresh (1920x1080i -> 1920x1080p).

Any way you look at it H.264 (and VC-1/9) gives you better quality.

Now, stop arguing!

Cheers

 

Thanks for the link, well you are certainly welcome if you have access to uncompressed 1080p stuff..

7mbit encode of 345600 pixels pr frame

6 times the bitrate and 6 times the resolution (1080p)

42mbit and 2073600 pixels pr frame

I may be wrong but i think it should be a good comparison, evethough i would think that h.264 and vc-1 should have a advantage with 1080p stuff

 

It's pointless Gubbi. Don't waste your breath. He won't understand that if you can fit 1080i @ 40Mbps with MPEG-2, then you can fit 1080p with H.264 at the same bitrate. Nor does he understand that 1080p has greater quality than 1080i at the same frame rate. Nor would he understand that you could encode 4:2:2 @ 12-bit instead of 4:2:0 at 8-bit with the extra bandwidth.

That's because he doesn't seek to understand. He has a stubborn headed view based on ignorance, and all he does is cherry pick any supporting text he can find, whether he understands it or not.

 

(why do I bother?)
First of all, Amir is not an unbiased source. I already showed on AVSFORUMs how he was spouting lies about BD-J vs IHD (claiming BD-J had over 10,000 methods, when it does not)

Secondly,

This is effectively the case today, as many consumers can't tell the difference between a DVD upscaled and HD content. So this statement alone says nothing.

Amir also effectively demolished your entire line of reasoning that started this thread, since no one is going to ship 40-50Mbps MPEG-2, there isn't going to be any dual-layer 50GB bluray movies shipped soon, so MPEG-2 is not going to provide the highest quality in consumer space, which is 25GB discs. VC-1 and H.264 will provide higher quality on HD-DVD and BD because you can't fit a 40Mbps MPEG-2 stream with reasonable extras on a disc. Amir's whole line of reasoning pertains to consume displays and format, not to compression in general, since I could easily falsify it by encoding 4k resolution image with VC-1 vs the MPEG-2 equivalent and show it on a ultra-hidef display, like the one shown at the World's Expo in Japan.


Also, if 1080p can't look any better than MPEG-2 at 50Mbps, why were you claiming that 250Mbps DCI is going to be so good? Isn't 250MBps DCI a huge waste of time then? According to you, it was no content, but Amir's own statement casts your own DCI propaganda as a contradiction.

Finally, why not ask Amir, if 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 12-bit 1080p is distinguishable from 4:2:0 8-bit encoded 1080i.

 

Actually, many people on AVS question Amir's credibility, due to his selective omission of facts when discussing HD-DVD vs BD.

Yes, because bitrate controls how much resolution you can pack in. If the question was, given a *fixed* resolution, of say, 1080i, is there diminishing returns at higher bitrates, the answer would be yes. I don't think anyone here would object to the idea that there are diminishing returns to quality if you hold resolution constant.

However, the question was never "given resolution X and bitrate Y", it was "given bitrate Y". If you give me 40Mbps, then I'm not simply going to compress 720p or 1080i signals, that would be a waste. If anyting, I'd be using 1080p or 2k resolution. In which case, there certainly would be a quality difference, since if you try to squeeze a 8-megapixel resolution into 40Mbps with MPEG-2, the result is going to be more artifacts than the advanced codecs.


Amir prefaces his comments with "consumer", "DVD", and "4:2:0", which means, ATSC resolutions. The whole idea of what constitutes a "low bitrate" (where even you admit H.264 and VC-1 are superior) is predicated on RESOLUTION. 1Mbps is a "low bitrate" for HD video, but a high bitrate for mobile video.


That said, he exploded your dream of MPEG-2 on dual layer BluRay discs. It ain't happening. None of the movie studios are doing it anytime soon.

If you've got the guts, ask Amir what will perform better on a 2k or 4k resolution stream at 40Mbps, VC-1 or MPEG-2.

The question boils down to: Given bitrate X, what's the best you can do, resolution + distortion wise.

p.s. you're still a plagiarist who knows nothing and relies on searching for answers

 

Absolutely on the mark, ika!

 

It is well known that I own a Sanyo PLV-70, which when I bought it in 2002, outclassed the SVGA projectors being used in digital cinemas and still continues to do so today if you consider market penetration of high-end PJ's like the Barco. I saw Attack of the Clones twice in digital theatres, and both were inferior to my home setup. It was one of the first true 720p projectors, and it delivered 2200 lumens (real) at 900:1. Even today, many small to medium cineplexes that have "digital" projectors are reusing business slide projectors that they use for showing pre-show advertising.

The Sanyo PLV-70 is a large venue projector, designed for theater audiences, it's just not cutting edge in 2005 like it was in 2002. On the other hand, Sony's SXRD venue projectors of 2005 beat DLP projectors of 2005, and many AVSFORUMers own home HT setups that clearly beat the Barco on all image quality specifications. 1080p is becoming commodified now.


As for the rest of your comments, when I talk about compression, I talk about the algorithm itself, not the format, so resolution is allowed ot scale with bitrate. Now you want to talk about specific formats, well, BR format is 25GB, and MPEG-2 is going to be used at 24Mbps. So you lose the argument whether you talk in the abstract, or whether you want to talk real world specifics.

The idea of 40Mbps MPEG-2 on DL BD-ROM discs just ain't gonna happen. In reality, it's going to be H.264/VC-1 @ 16Mbps 1080p vs MPEG-2 @ 24Mbps @ 1080p.

 

Ehmms since when is 7mbit h.264 at SD resolution a "low" bitrate?